Marijuana industry lobbyists argued for the bill, saying there's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs and that the prohibition would assure the public that disability benefits or other entitlements aren't being used on pot.

Dude, if the businesses you're targeting are arguing for it maybe you should listen to them.

NutWrench:The purpose of EBT cards is to buy food. You shouldn't be able to draw cash on them no matter where the ATM is located.

They aren't talking about just a food stamp card. You can't use SNAP at ATM's. Yes, some people get cash benefits, whether they also get food stamps or not. Here, unemployment benefits also use the same card (in addition to disability, welfare, etc), so I imagine the same location restrictions apply.

markfara:How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.

I think only certain classes of people on EBT can get cash. People who aren't on welfare but on some other system like SS or disability. It would actually make sense to let people who are disabled and have some sort of chronic pain buy pot. I mean, if you have medical infrastructure already in place, it doesn't make as much sense, but there is some.

Further, I don't actually want them to pass a special law. An ATM is an ATM. It shouldn't matter where it's located. Banning them from using ATMs that happen to be in pot stores is just arbitrary and stupid. As someone else said, they can go to the 7-11 across teh street and use that ATM, so it solves nothing. The argument over who should be able to use EBT cards in ATMs and how much they should be able to get and at what rate is a completely separate argument.

<i>Democrats on the committee all voted against the idea. They said people in poor neighborhoods already have difficulty accessing ATMs and that the bill isn't needed. </i>

Holy Fark, <i>Democrats</i> arguing against 'unnecessary regulation'? If this keeps up I might have to switch parties.

fusillade762:Only certain people can get cash with them (disabled and the elderly, iirc) and it's a separate balance from the food benefits.

Then what's the use of restricting where you can pull cash? It just creates regulatory overhead in that case. Casinos and liquor stores I can almost understand, but why gun shops?It almost sounds like a compromise between a statist religious nanny and a statist 'for your own good' nanny. Though as I think about it more the less sense the restrictions make. For example, uniformed military members are banned from gambling. However they're allowed to go to the buffets and such in Casinos. Liquor stores are often attached to grocery stores, and even if not most people can get booze from convenience stores that aren't technically 'liquor stores'.

So I return to my basic policy of 'how much effort are we spending here? For how much effect? Don't bother, it's not worth it'.

abhorrent1:Because people on public assistance are known to be very responsible with their money.

But they're also highly creative on working around any restrictions placed on them to try to get them to be responsible.

markfara:How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.

Because the government is giving them money that happens to be on a card and not food stamps?Do you think that groups such as the disabled only buy food with their benefits? Even if you don't think they should ever have any entertainment, that also means no clothes, rent, utilities, health costs....How about those on unemployment insurance? It's insurance. We don't know what they have saved or not. It's time limited. Why even care what they buy? It's the same amount of money regardless.

ErinPac:NutWrench: The purpose of EBT cards is to buy food. You shouldn't be able to draw cash on them no matter where the ATM is located.

They aren't talking about just a food stamp card. You can't use SNAP at ATM's. Yes, some people get cash benefits, whether they also get food stamps or not. Here, unemployment benefits also use the same card (in addition to disability, welfare, etc), so I imagine the same location restrictions apply.

So, in other words, an EBT card ensures that the recipient has "spending cash" while at the same time keeping the food funds safe?

NutWrench:The purpose of EBT cards is to buy food. You shouldn't be able to draw cash on them no matter where the ATM is located.

Not exclusively. EBT cards are used to disperse a wide number of public benefits, not just food stamps.

scottydoesntknow:Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?

Nothing.

fusillade762:Marijuana industry lobbyists argued for the bill, saying there's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs and that the prohibition would assure the public that disability benefits or other entitlements aren't being used on pot.

Dude, if the businesses you're targeting are arguing for it maybe you should listen to them.

The pot industry supported the bill as a sort of, "fine, who cares" thing because they don't want the Republicans to be able to use this non-issue in campaigning against them.

I have absolutely no problem with someone who is disabled by chronic (heh) crippling pain using their EBT for edibles to find relief. In fact I would look own upon anyone that would go out of their way to make sure these poor folks can't find relief, however temporary it may be. I know from experience that weed can go a long way towards relieving severe pain. I've had screws placed into my feet to put some bones back together after surgery. I've had a tib/fib that left the fib in a dozen pieces. Broken rib. wrist, etc. etc. An I sweat pot was as helpful as the oxycontin I was prescribed. People in pain should be able to help themselves however they can.

ErinPac:markfara: How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.

Because the government is giving them money that happens to be on a card and not food stamps?Do you think that groups such as the disabled only buy food with their benefits? Even if you don't think they should ever have any entertainment, that also means no clothes, rent, utilities, health costs....How about those on unemployment insurance? It's insurance. We don't know what they have saved or not. It's time limited. Why even care what they buy? It's the same amount of money regardless.

I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

fusillade762:Marijuana industry lobbyists argued for the bill, saying there's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs and that the prohibition would assure the public that disability benefits or other entitlements aren't being used on pot.

Dude, if the businesses you're targeting are arguing for it maybe you should listen to them.

On the one hand, this.

On the other hand, a good Rand worshipper should appreciate that one party is pushing back against regulations that will hurt capitalists.

On the gripping hand, allowing people on welfare to stay stoned on pot might not be a bad idea.

Firethorn:Then what's the use of restricting where you can pull cash? It just creates regulatory overhead in that case. Casinos and liquor stores I can almost understand, but why gun shops?It almost sounds like a compromise between a statist religious nanny and a statist 'for your own good' nanny. Though as I think about it more the less sense the restrictions make. For example, uniformed military members are banned from gambling. However they're allowed to go to the buffets and such in Casinos. Liquor stores are often attached to grocery stores, and even if not most people can get booze from convenience stores that aren't technically 'liquor stores'.

Basically because it makes for good media coverage and gets people raging about how the poor spending their tax money even though the only effect it might have is making it less convenient to find an ATM at all in certain neighborhoods. Once they do get the cash, they cannot control where it is spent. The liquor rule in particular would probably eliminate some relatively isolated and close to neighborhood locations. I've seen some gas station quick mart/liquor stores that might count and not have a lot of other ATM's around. In some of the poorer areas of the city, that's the easiest place to find an ATM. But, the rule plays well for attention.

The casino one is the only one that really makes sense to me, and that's because if you have any sort of addiction going on, at least you have to leave the location before you continue, which might keep it a tad less impulsive. Though, that would probably apply about as much to people not on any assistance.

The military stuff is different. They have a lot of rules that are intended to make sure they look respectable and non-partisan in military uniform. A lot of those go away when out of uniform. That's more akin to an employer with rules about tarnishing their image or using a competitor's product while on duty. I think the only gambling rule that stays in place out of uniform is don't bet against your subordinates, and there are a lot of rules about money/gifts and ranks which are similar. They don't stop gambling entirely though - there's even slot machines in some base's officer's clubs.

scottydoesntknow:Wait...you can use EBT cards at ATMs? What's to stop people from going to an ATM at the 7-Eleven across the street and buying it then? Or gambling? Or buying a gun?

There are two different types of EBT accounts. The most common is a food assistance account, which is basically the old food stamps program. The other account is welfare. Rather than go through the expense of giving poor people two different cards, for two different programs they run off the same card. Your food stamp card can only be used to buy approved grocery items, which are basically anything not cooked in the store, or that contains alcohol. Your welfare account can be used almost like a regular debit card, but it won't let you buy alcohol, cigarettes, and you are not supposed to gamble with the money, or blow it on strippers. However, you can use an ATM to pull out cash then turn around and spend it. Colorado doesn't let you use ATMs inside liquor stores, gun shops, or strip clubs it seems.

In Florida, you can use your EBT card on any ATM you want, regardless of its location, and a sizable number gets used on ATMs in or right outside strip clubs, bars and liquor stores. I forget the exact percent, but there was as local news story about it a while back, and I want to say it was something like 20 percent. Coincidently, ATMs in those locations normally charge a hell of a lot more money for the user fee. I've seen an ATM outside a nightclub charge a ten dollar fee, so even though EBT users can still walk across the street to an ATM, the rule does protect them from some impulse buying, as well as predatory ATM fees.

markfara:ErinPac: markfara: How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.

Because the government is giving them money that happens to be on a card and not food stamps?Do you think that groups such as the disabled only buy food with their benefits? Even if you don't think they should ever have any entertainment, that also means no clothes, rent, utilities, health costs....How about those on unemployment insurance? It's insurance. We don't know what they have saved or not. It's time limited. Why even care what they buy? It's the same amount of money regardless.

I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

You can get your Social Security benefits on a card. Do you think she'd need to be protected from using the wrong ATM's if she switched to that option? I wouldn't be surprised if eventually people had to choose between the card and direct deposit. A lot of benefits have gone that way to save costs.

ErinPac:You can get your Social Security benefits on a card. Do you think she'd need to be protected from using the wrong ATM's if she switched to that option?

No. But I don't really place Social Security in the "government handout" category, since she paid into it for years. She can have it all converted to dimes and throw them at the pigeons for all I care.

This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies". Why don't we just give them a monthly drug allowance as well?

markfara:ErinPac: You can get your Social Security benefits on a card. Do you think she'd need to be protected from using the wrong ATM's if she switched to that option?

No. But I don't really place Social Security in the "government handout" category, since she paid into it for years. She can have it all converted to dimes and throw them at the pigeons for all I care.

I wouldn't worry too much about disability or unemployment check spending either, but they use the same EBT card (at least here).

Cash is cash.

Most of the programs that give cash really weren't designed to babysit the beneficiaries budgets.

Even if it were just the money for poor single mothers or something similar... the most you can really do is make them play games about what ATM to use or they use it on utilities and such... so they can spend any other money wherever they want. It's at best a shell game. Money is money and these sort of feel good rules are just useless fluff.

Are you seriously suggesting that people poor enough to qualify for cash aid -- as an aggregate group -- spend 20% of their money on strippers? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

I could maybe believe that 20% of cash-benefit EBT card were at one point in history used at a strip club ATM (though even that seems a stretch to me). But the idea that strippers get 20% of cash aid to poor people flies in the face not just of common sense, but of every actual study on the topic.

I know for the sake of justifying our own wealth it's easy to believe that poor people deserve to be poor, and that they're bound to spend whatever money they get on wasteful things like strippers and booze, but actual study clearly indicates that poor people, as an aggregate group, rarely increase "undesirable" spending when you give them more money. Certainly some individuals make bad choices, as in any group, but even in studies targeting people with criminal and drug histories, unearned income is overwhelmingly spent on things that most people would consider worthwhile expenditures.

DubyaHater:This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies". Why don't we just give them a monthly drug allowance as well?

Laobaojun:On the other hand, a good Rand worshipper should appreciate that one party is pushing back against regulations that will hurt capitalists.

Less a Randroid than a 'practical minarchist'. I don't care that this 'will hurt capitalists' - the money will be spent one way or another. What I care about is that I see the regulation being ineffective, taking what, 5-10 minutes to bypass, with probably quite a bit of regulatory overhead, as you now have to categories ATMs and the cards that go in them to deny transations in 'bad locations'.

ErinPac:markfara: ErinPac: You can get your Social Security benefits on a card. Do you think she'd need to be protected from using the wrong ATM's if she switched to that option?

No. But I don't really place Social Security in the "government handout" category, since she paid into it for years. She can have it all converted to dimes and throw them at the pigeons for all I care.

I wouldn't worry too much about disability or unemployment check spending either, but they use the same EBT card (at least here).

Cash is cash.

Most of the programs that give cash really weren't designed to babysit the beneficiaries budgets.

Even if it were just the money for poor single mothers or something similar... the most you can really do is make them play games about what ATM to use or they use it on utilities and such... so they can spend any other money wherever they want. It's at best a shell game. Money is money and these sort of feel good rules are just useless fluff.

There's a lot to what you're saying, really. I had a part-time job in a convenience store a few years back, and it wasn't at all uncommon to have someone buy "food" with their food stamps and use their "cash cash" for cheap beer.

The only real alternative that I can see is to let them flounder, which might make a certain segment of society feel all tingly but would create far more trouble for us all in the long run.

Is nobody other than me angry that taxpayer money can be used to buy weed? Im not an anti welfare type who wants to let folks starve or die of untreated illnesses, but I rankle at buying intoxicants for the jobless.

ErinPac:The military stuff is different. They have a lot of rules that are intended to make sure they look respectable and non-partisan in military uniform. A lot of those go away when out of uniform. That's more akin to an employer with rules about tarnishing their image or using a competitor's product while on duty. I think the only gambling rule that stays in place out of uniform is don't bet against your subordinates, and there are a lot of rules about money/gifts and ranks which are similar. They don't stop gambling entirely though - there's even slot machines in some base's officer's clubs.

I was using it as an example - I meant 'in uniform' - IE you're not allowed to gamble off base while in uniform. But you are allowed to walk through the casino gambling area to reach the buffet for lunch. And yes, it's an image thing.

Same deal with the other rules, I agree they're mostly about image.

DubyaHater:This is what we need. A bunch of poor people addicted to marijuana who will now demand more government assistance to satisfy their "munchies". Why don't we just give them a monthly drug allowance as well?

England ran a quite successful anti-drug program in regard to Heroin doing essentially this for decades; it's when they stopped providing 'free' drugs to addicts that the black market dealers managed to get a real foothold there.

profplump:I could maybe believe that 20% of cash-benefit EBT card were at one point in history used at a strip club ATM (though even that seems a stretch to me). But the idea that strippers get 20% of cash aid to poor people flies in the face not just of common sense, but of every actual study on the topic.

Could have been one of the employees using the handiest ATM... Or do they have proof that the money was withdrawn and then spent there?

fireclown:Is nobody other than me angry that taxpayer money can be used to buy weed? Im not an anti welfare type who wants to let folks starve or die of untreated illnesses, but I rankle at buying intoxicants for the jobless.

I think that idea chaps the asses of most thinking people. I'd love to have a system that wouldn't be subject to that kind of abuse, but I can't think of one that wouldn't involve harming people who really do use public assistance responsibly. Any ideas?

fireclown:Is nobody other than me angry that taxpayer money can be used to buy weed? Im not an anti welfare type who wants to let folks starve or die of untreated illnesses, but I rankle at buying intoxicants for the jobless.

Bread and circuses, man. And pot makes everything a circus. No wonder the Republicans are backing this, stoned Democrats are less likely to get to the voting booths.

fireclown:Is nobody other than me angry that taxpayer money can be used to buy weed? Im not an anti welfare type who wants to let folks starve or die of untreated illnesses, but I rankle at buying intoxicants for the jobless.

Because someone on Unemployment should never drink or smoke. My god. If you want a revolution, target a bunch of working class people who have time on their hands. The movement to stop people from applying for unemployment in person was done to stop them from networking.

Also, when I was on unemployment, I often used the ATM at the corner bar. Why?

Because it was 3 miles closer to my house and the cheapest ATM in the county. They charged $2 and the next closest ATM charged $3.50.

markfara:I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well. I know grandmere did.

fireclown:Is nobody other than me angry that taxpayer money can be used to buy weed? Im not an anti welfare type who wants to let folks starve or die of untreated illnesses, but I rankle at buying intoxicants for the jobless.

I can sorta see that, but the problem is that micromanaging every single dime of welfare money spent has been tried - and it's proven to be unwieldy, complicated, and costly. I also don't like seeing welfare money pissed away on administrative costs - you end up with idiotic, crooked shiat like that drug-testing grift they tried in Florida.We are never going to acheive an "ideal" form of welfare - "optimum" is about the best we can hope for.If we want to micromangae something, maybe we should look into the billions in subsidies and tax breaks that go to corporate industies - some of them littlle better than crime cartels. Seems like if a person was REALLY "fiscally conservative" they would look where the big bucks are first.

kitsuneymg:markfara: How is using an EBT card to get money any different than selling food stamps? Apart from the efficiency factor, I mean.

There's no evidence people on public benefits are using pot-shop ATMs.

True. Poor people hate pot in much the same way as they hate crack and alcohol.

I think only certain classes of people on EBT can get cash. People who aren't on welfare but on some other system like SS or disability. It would actually make sense to let people who are disabled and have some sort of chronic pain buy pot. I mean, if you have medical infrastructure already in place, it doesn't make as much sense, but there is some.

Further, I don't actually want them to pass a special law. An ATM is an ATM. It shouldn't matter where it's located. Banning them from using ATMs that happen to be in pot stores is just arbitrary and stupid. As someone else said, they can go to the 7-11 across teh street and use that ATM, so it solves nothing. The argument over who should be able to use EBT cards in ATMs and how much they should be able to get and at what rate is a completely separate argument.

SS is a federal program not linked to EBT, because EBT is a state controlled program. The SS department just sends a check or direct deposit. Agreed, that there really isn't need to fuss about folks using ATMs. However, if they allowed pot on the food stamp program, the federal government would likely shut the whole thing down. Cutting funding to control the situation is how the federal government rolls.

Uchiha_Cycliste:markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well. I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.

Uchiha_Cycliste:AngryDragon: Of course you can. There's a Democrat in the White House.

Is this some racist, blacks and drugs thing? I don't get it.

Everybody needs to have their existence acknowledged by their fellow human beings. If the only way you can do that is butt into conversations you can't comprehend and say something pointless and stupid, that's what you do.

jso2897:Uchiha_Cycliste: AngryDragon: Of course you can. There's a Democrat in the White House.

Is this some racist, blacks and drugs thing? I don't get it.

Everybody needs to have their existence acknowledged by their fellow human beings. If the only way you can do that is butt into conversations you can't comprehend and say something pointless and stupid, that's what you do.

And damned if I don; t o it really good like... but what issue do you have with me asking for clarification? Am I not allowed to ask someone to explain their comment?

jso2897:I can sorta see that, but the problem is that micromanaging every single dime of welfare money spent has been tried - and it's proven to be unwieldy, complicated, and cost

citation needed.

Look, some states have sales taxes which exempt most "food". Tax exempt food is well defined. That banana you see in the store? It's not taxed. That Hershey bar is taxed. It may not be a perfect system, but it is pretty good. If we can do that then we can prevent tax dollars from going towards booze or pot or tobacco at the very least.

markfara:Uchiha_Cycliste: markfara: I guess it must vary from state to state. The only person I'm acquainted with first-hand who uses government assistance is my mother-in-law in Indiana. She gets her health and utility expenses paid directly by the government, no card necessary. Social Security checks provide her living expenses. She's pretty good at managing the money she gets, but I'm suspect that's not the norm.

To the contrary I would imagine that all the old folks on SS who lived through or were affected by the great depression probably budgets very well. I know grandmere did.

MIL raised three kids in what was basically a shack, living on a sh*t income, so I think she got hip to budgeting pretty early in the game.

That's great (that she was privy to proper budgeting). If only we could teach kids these days to do the same, and as long as we are dreaming, the GOP too.